Gatwicknose:
Thanks for the update on the schedule - I hadn't realised it was being changed. I note that it will then be operable with one aircraft: STN 1600-JFK 1845LT and then JFK 2015 - STN0830LT.
I have to assume that this is being done for cost-saving reasons rather than customer-preference reasons - after all, their original (existing) schedule didn't have the we've-got-to-fit-a-round-trip-on-one-aircraft constraint, so presumably that original schedule (depart STN 1810 - arr JFK 2055, and depart JFK 1905 - arrive STN 0715) was felt to have optimal timings. Indeed, back in November, here's what David Spurlock said in the schedule-change press release on the EOS website, i.e. when they changed their STN departure to 1810 (while the eastbound timings stayed as they were, with an 0715 STN arrival):
“In less than five weeks of service, the enthusiasm of our guests to Eos’ unique approach to
business travel has been nothing short of spectacular,” said David Spurlock, founder and chief
executive officer of Eos. “Our London-bound business executives have enjoyed moving
quickly through London Stansted airport, and arriving in short order to their destination in the
City by about 9 am. With our schedule change, our guests can now work nearly a full day and
arrive in New York in the early evening.”
As a passenger, I can see two disadvantages to the new schedule. I can no longer work "nearly a full day" in London - I have to leave my office there two hours earlier, essentially just after lunchtime, to get the flight, and in the other direction, whereas I could previously have aimed to arrive in STN at 0715, had a quick shower, and got the limo to take me into the City for an 0900 start (as per DS quote above), that's unlikely to be feasible any more.
But (with my non-paper airline strategist hat on) I can accept that compromises have to be made, especially if the revenue is not building up as fast as hoped.
However - and here's the bit I'm curious about - EOS have three 757s, all on lease from ILFC. EOS isn't actually going to make any operational savings from this schedule change unless they are giving one aircraft back to the lessor or deploying it somewhere else. So their options are:
- Give the aircraft back to ILFC (unlikely to be welcomed!)
- Sublease the aircraft to someone else, to offset their fixed lease-rental costs
- Start a corporate-shuttle operation for someone
- Dedicate the aircraft to ad hoc charter, which is apparently going well
- Start a new route (although there would need to be a lead-in period)
- Start a second daily frequency (but wouldn't it make sense to do so at the same time that you're changing the schedule anyway?)
Oh, and one other thing: I have to echo Andy_S's comments. I've seen "bashers" on PPRUNE when a new airline appears - we all have. But there's a difference between "I think their livery sucks and they didn't give me a job and anyway they fly Boeings and I know Airbus is better so I HOPE THEY FAIL but now I have to go back to my homework"
and well-reasoned questioning of business assumptions. I'd love to see EOS succeed. I know how tough it is to launch a (non-paper) airline, having been in that position myself, and I have a lot of respect for anyone who seriously tries. But some business models and business decisions are just more questionable, and less robust, than others.
There's a big difference between wishing to see an airline fail, and expressing a (reasoned) opinion that it's in danger of failing.
I'll be happy if I'm proven wrong, but I've not seen anything yet to convince me EOS has turned the corner. Yes, they are doing something different, and deserve credit for that. Yes, they have superb customer service. Yes, they have a backup plane for schedule integrity. Yes, they're cheaper than BA's published C class fare. These are all positives. But they serve only one route. They are competing against BA's most profitable route (and probably BA's most profitable class on that route). They are buying traffic with a whole series of advance-booking offers and promotions and discounts (today, for example, there's a buy-one-get-one-free sale on the website). Their FFP is essentially a money-back offer. Their European Sales VP has left (reported in ABTN on April 4). Their load factors, based on available evidence, are building more slowly than expected.
Perhaps they'll come through this - they have reasonably deep pockets in terms of startup funding, and as I say I think their product is fantastic and I give them credit for seeking to break the mould - but I submit that the evidence is not yet on their side.
(edited to amend "very deep pockets" to "reasonably deep pockets" - I went back and looked at some of the startup press material.)